Slashdot Mirror
Teacher Fired for P2P Lecture
An anonymous reader writes "A teacher at the Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain, was forced to resign after a talk about P2P networks. You can read his side of the story on his blog." From the article: "The day before the conference, the Dean (pressured by the Spanish Recording Industry Association 'Promusicae' as I found out later, and he recognized himself in a quote to the national newspaper El Pais, and even the Motion Picture Association of America, as another newspaper quotes) tried to stop it by denying permission to use the scheduled venue. So I scheduled a second one, and that was denied again. And a third time. Finally I gave the conference on the university cafeteria, for 5 hours, in front of 150 people." Commentary on this story at BoingBoing as well.
...he should have ended it with "I'll probably be fired for this, so each of you go tell everybody you know." Or something to that effect.
How are you going to suppress a n^x communication growth curve?
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
He wasn't fired. He (claims he) was pressurised into resigning. I ain't making any judgement or saying anything else until I've heard an account of events from someone less close to the controversy.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I just don't get it. Why should talking about P2P networks be considered illegal, and why was he forbidden in the first place? Of course, after being forbidden once, he should have fought with the authorities and argued his case until he got permission, not ignored them and gone on to speak.
$>eval("Forced to resign" != "fired");
=0
$>
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
This is not fair!! Maybe one of the audience will be motivated and develop a complete P2P solution which is legal and benefits both *AA and users. Maybe the organizers should attend a conference where Balmer is the speaker.
Developer, developer, developer....
fuvoo: watch something
Hoffa better start makin room in his coffin for this guy...
This guy goes out to talk about the legal uses of P2P networks, and the recording industry gets him fired. How exactly do they expect to convince people to buy their products rather than downloading them, if they do this sort of thing?
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
The Director called me and first asked me to remove any link to the university from my website, and also to "hide" the fact that I was teaching there. Then he told me about the pressures and threats he and the Program received (to be subjected to software licenses inspection, copyright violations inspections, or anything that may damage them). Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did.
I'm not trying to say what happened was at all right, but it does not help the argument to start stories with the claim that he was fired. Fudging the little facts to get attention always in the long run will be held against you, and your side will not be taken as seriously.
Also, one should remember that this teacher was not approved to give the lecture and decided to go without permission and give it in the cafeteria. This would be grounds for inspecting someones future at most companies/universities.
Once again, I think what happened was a shame, but I also think that ignoring these facts is just unacceptable.
You really only get one side from this story. I'm no fan at censorships at University, but the guy was really asking for it. After being told repeatedly by his administration that this was a no-go (and we don't have the full story on why this was a no-go) he did it anyways. It's insubordination, more than anything else. If he had worked in less confrontational manner, who knows what he might have been able to acheive.
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
Welcome to Academia. That's how you fire people here.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
No, he -resigned- to "save jobs?". NONE was fired.
I dont get that... resigned to protect the boss that bent to the movie guys wishes, and the 'other masters program guys'. What danger were they in???
hmm... of course we're in america, i wonder if he still has a alwsuit over there, since we have 50 for that sort of case.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Leave contraversial lectures to professors with TENURE.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
If it was as simple as that then very few people would ever be pressurised into resigning. However, if they make your job (and subsequently your life) unbearable then you have to weigh up whether it is worth it. In many cases it wont be. If the guy had the balls to do the lecture in the cafe after it was cancelled twice then I doubt he was a pushover as you seem to be implying.
Copyright Infringement is to stealing as Forced to resign is to fired.
What's so surprising about an EU state being pressured? That's how the EU was formed.
Sometimes the grief you can get from standing up for yourself at the wrong time isn't worth it at that moment.
Sometimes its better to wait to make your case...
Spending the next 6 months in prison to make your point ( or dead ) even if you are right, isn't cool. Especially when postponing your 'statement' a little will keep you outside.
Proper timing is everything. Especially when you have a life to lead, and a family to support.
And in this case he's getting his word out, and saved his financial butt in the process.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Oh sure... then he'd be fired for certain.
People in power don't kiss ass and resent the suggestion to do so.
Well, while it's true the end result is the same (he loses his job), the distinction is still important. Being fired and being "forced" to resign (tangent: forced how?) are not the same thing. If he refused to resign, for instance, and THEN was fired, that would be something else entirely, no?
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
nobody expects the Spanish (Recording Industry Association) inquisition!
What I find unbelievable is this whole "P2P is illegal" thing.
Certain uses of P2P technology, which involves sharing of copywrited material is indeed illegal. However, there is nothing illegal about P2P technology in and of itself.
There are large corporations out there that are working to build legitimate P2P applications for the benefit of the general public.
Where's the disconnect?
Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
Apparently he didn't care much about his job, because according to his post when he was asked to resign he did. However, I do feel if it was that important to him, he should have refused to resign and put up a fight in order to make a stink about it. This would have done exactly what the director did not want, cast a huge light on the situation.
Because now he has no leverage. This sucks, and I sympathize but what can be done? If he still had his job, for example it would be a man standing up for his principles and at the same time a man who has a right to his job. That's the kind of thing you can try to milk.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
If he'd been a tenured professor, he wouldn't have been under as much personal pressure to resign but that wouldn't have stopped his department from being "audited" to death by the industry, and he might still have chosen to resign to "take one for the team."
I hope there's an investigation into the outside pressure:
Either there is reason for department to be audited or it shouldn't be, but the topics of discussion in the lectures should NOT be a determining factor, and his resignation should NOT change whether or not any audits proceed. The fact that his resignation changed that outcome means it's political, and as such there needs to be an investigation, so this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
First, it would have cost the university a software audit. "Who cares?" you say. This would undoubtedly turn up something on someone's machine that was illegal, and the university would be fined. Then the university would make damn sure that this guy never worked anywhere in academia ever again.
So, if you are prepared to deal with this sort of thing, it's not a big deal. Stand up for your rights. But, unless you want to lose your job anyway and then not get hired elsewhere, it's best to resign.
Unfortunately, as previous posters have noted, that's the way it works in academia.
Exactly. What else would *YOU* do if they told you that unless you leave, they will fire the whole department along with you? If not loyalty to your department then at least loyalty and respect for your colleagues should make you give in and quit. There are other ways to fight this kind of battle.
What happens to a society when the moneyed interests have a controling influence in everything? The Government. The Media. The Schools. NPR had an exellent segment yesterday on Peru's National Intelligence leader durring the Fujimori regime. The jist of it was that he was able to run a de-facto authoritarian country, not through physical coersion, but through bribing everyone. Even if the RIAA and MPAA has no army, their wealthy legal department and overall financial influence could be enough to silence just about anyone important the world over.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
I don't necessarily disbelieve him, but a critical, intelligent mind requires a little further evidence than his own testimony before bitch-slapping anyone else's opinion.
That would be cross-verifying his statements about the vice-Dean publicly saying that he never taught at that University. If those are true, then he was actually repudiated.
Okay, the teacher was pressured by the director, and the director was pressured by the Dean.
Who was applying pressure to the Dean, and how? And why does giving a talk to 150 people justify this level of pressure?
It sounds more like a tinfoil hat conspiracy where the Dean had his own reasons for doing what he did, but I'm not convinced the media cartels had anything to do with it.
Could someone host his p2p lecture as worldwide video conferencing thing? I quite interested in what it all was about
Obviously no Free Speech rights in Spain -- even in the university system.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Wafflers. The university should know better than to fear a entertainment industry. This teacher should know better as well. Lecturing at the cafeteria? Who cares... its a quasi public place and they were obviously conspiring against him. The facts could b e more clear, I'd just like to see a little more strength that's probably the mean american in me though.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
"Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else's at the Masters Program). So I did."
Something doesn't add up here, but that depends on the alternative of not resigning. There was no real foundation for a dismissal, so he would have been shifted to a quieter role until he made a simple mistake.(tangent: forced how?)
Forced to resign under threat of being Fired.
Duh.
You see, in non-McDonald level jobs, being fired is a serious impediment to getting hired elsewhere. However, if you "resign", you can BS your next employer as to the reason.
they normally get two choices: be fired or resign.
Now which would sound better to future prospective employers?.
Sounds more like the guy was constructively dismissed.
Well, while it's true the end result is the same (he loses his job), the distinction is still important.
but the end result is NOT the same (at least in the business world). severance packages are often very different (nonexistent in firing). being allowed to resign is much better...
IANAL, but in most countries if you are forced into a position where you feel incorrectly pressured to resign, and you do resign, that is still grounds for an unfair dismissal case. He was effectively fired by the comments that were presented to him.
However, I do agree with some people that it would have been a clearer argument if he waited longer for the situation to develop more and made proper recordings of phone calls "discussing his problematic situation".
Doesn't he have a union or something? I mean, this is Spain, I didn't think things like this could happen there without some kind of repurcussions for the entity doing the firing.
I can't believe how quickly these creatures have crawled from beneath the bridges and translated their near-unintelligble grunts to paper.
Mods, please mark "Troll" to anyone who posts anything like:
"He's a wuss, he backed down and quit."
or
"He resigned, he didn't get fired. TFA != Story Title"
Half-truth: He resigned.
Complete truth: He was forced to resign, and denounced by the university. The university said, "he only taught a few classes," when he'd been teaching full-time for 5 years!
This is BS, and censorship at its worst. I'm working on becoming a Computer Science professor, and this article makes me glad I don't live in Spain. Does anyone remember this from a few weeks ago? The RIAA wants just as much control over U.S. universities as the Spanish equivalent already has over theirs.
I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
So, he was never a teacher, and he only taught a few classes.
Never teacher... taught classes.
Hmm.
Well, common sense says that when your lecture is denied twice by the university, and you give it anyway, you're likely going to get fired.
The firing is legit - he clearly disobeyed a very clear issue. Most would agree that denying the request was wrong (for some definition of wrong), but that doesn't mean he should ignore his employer.
It doesn't matter WHY they say it, they pay his salary, he either listens or goes elsewhere.
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
h00pla says: Who cares about being precise, especially when it's important? Close is good enough for me!
h00pla dealt the killing blow to the English language.
h00pla gains 15 experience points.
h00pla gains a level! New title: Slashdot Editor.
-Grandparent AC
A university isn't the same as a business. The notion of academic freedom is central to a university, and the fact that a group of record companies could pressure a dean in this way shows that these guys have taken upon themselves far too much power. It was wrong, it was a violation of the notions of academic freedom, and I think the time is coming when we better sit down and figure out just how much power we want RIAA and its clones elsewhere in the world to have.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Pardon me, José, could you stay out of the mini-fridge? Thanks. And Miguél, I know your Cheetos are stuck, but that's life...
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
And if you commit a crime, and turn yourself in, you only surrendered and are not 'Arrested' right?
/backhandslap
Being forced to resign IS being fired.
Why else would the guy in the article be pressured into resigning? The content industries (principally RIAA/MPAA) see P2P as a threat to their business model. So rather than embrace and use P2P to their benefit. They treat it like some sort of pariah replete with cries of 'piracy' and not 'copyright infringement'. Added to that you have 'forever minus a day' style copyright terms (Mickey Mouse anyone?) and you have a potent recipie for hypocricy. Don't forget, the content industries are also pressuring computer hardware and software makers to adopt 'Trusted Computing' which will dictate how the people who use such DRM-crippeled computers copy and use information. Vote with your wallet and just say no to 'Trusted Computing'.
The shroud of the darkside has fallen!
This guy are sick.
I suspect the disconnect is that the politicians are only listening to the spin from the Recording and Movie industry execs who equate P2P with illegal downloading of copyrighted works. There needs to be more and more discussion and demonstration about the legal uses of P2P.
It is sad that this teacher felt he was pressured to resign. IANAL but I think he should have consulted legal counsel and fought it. This would have made a terrific show case for legal P2P uses. But doing so would take a huge personal toll.
Hopefully his blog will ignite a few fires.
Mark
But its ok to spend a year dead for tax reasons :).
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
This follows directly from the guiding principle of the *AA: It's not who's right that counts, it's who's left. If they can eliminate (through intimidation, lawsuits, harassment, censorship, ...) all opposition, then who's left?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
The disconnect comes with the unintentional branding that P2P is all about trading copyrighted work. But then its easier to blame P2P rather than the individuals participating in piracy.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Could someone host his p2p lecture as worldwide video conferencing thing? I quite interested in what it all was about
Relase it via bittorrent. Nothing like using a P2P network to prove the point.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I only teach part-time, but I definitely make use of class time to push P2P on the students and tell them that it is their responsibility to get out there and share as much as they can. I find the students are eager to discuss the issue.
I see it as a personal obligation to get people to use P2P, especially the ones that are scared of it. Now, I don't publicly encourage them to violate copyright in the sense that I direct them to sites like eTree and Knoppix, but I do use class time to teach them how to set up BitTorrent to work with TOR and discuss the merits of clients like Mute and GNUnet.
To me, this is just following the trend. The RIAA, MPAA and BSA are all into encouraging shools to spend more time on the topic of intellectual property so teachers should feel obliged to take them up on it and use class time to discuss these topics at length.
I think schools should spend a whole day each week doing nothing but discussing P2P and exchanging examples of the right way to share. The more time devoted to the topic, the better.
He was resigned.
Whether he resigned or was fired, or was pressured to resign is another matter. He was censored in his own university, for God's sake!
In professional and university circles a "pressured resignation" is an option given to people they are about to FIRE to try to save them some dignity.
The choice bears great similarity to the choices given to political targets in totalitarian regimes. "commit suicide by your choice or be tortured to death publically".
It doesn't matter that he decided to resign under pressure, he would have been tossed out by security the day after had he refused.
Not to pick nits, he makes it a point to be emphatically clear in the comments that the blog was NOT about him having to resign. What upset him was the censoring. I'm sure he will have no problems finding another job, especially after the publicity he will receive from this.
As they kept pressurising him, he realized he would soon explode if he didn't agree to resign. Spanish Universities may have inherited the Spanish Inquisition taste for exquisite ways of dealing with malcontents...
His lecture wasn't denied twice, and if he was fired over it he'd have an open and shut wrongful termination suit, assuming that they have such a thing in Spain. His *request for a venue* was denied twice. So he gave the lecture in a place where he didn't have to ask for permission. As a trivial example, you get turned down twice trying to reserve a school field for your baseball game. So you have it at the next door park instead, where you don't have to ask.
The administration was not right to fire him. Presumably, the use of the cafeteria is open to everyone for any purpose. I think you are assuming that his use was unauthorized. Afterall, he could have used one of the facilities that he was explicitly denied. I also assume that he was not asked to stop during his talk due to disruption in cafeteria functioning. As for his contacting the organizations listed, it was probably for clearance and not for raising a stink. Afterall, if he wanted a stink he would contacted the media first and foremost.
Lastly, I agree that if raising a stink was his purpose, then he wouldn't have resigned.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
Slashdot actually credits BoingBoing as source!
kulakovich
I think it would be great if they made peer-to-peer illegal. Since IP is a peer-to-peer protocol, you'd be able to shut down the operations of Sprint, Qwest, AOL, Verisign, and millions more. One day of 'peer-to-peer is illegal' would be enough for proof by contradiction.
"There are large corporations out there that are working to build legitimate P2P applications for the benefit of the general public.
Where's the disconnect?"
In the brainstems of the MAFIA (Music and Film Industry of America). To them, P2P should be illegal regardless of its legal or infringing uses, reality notwithstanding.
Just because it is _predictable_ does not make it legitimate. If he worked for Transglobal Conglomerates, the firing would be perfectly legit.
The proud history of universities is that they are supposed to be places for the sharing of information, not places for censorship. A university is generally considered to be part of a public trust of information, unlike a privately held for profit corporation. The charter of a university is usually not-for-profit and to spread and increase knowledge.
Good universities have professors who say scandalous things and - if they are well thought out - keep their jobs (usually unless they are personally attacking more senior faculty). By going ahead and getting forced to resign, I believe he did exactly what he intended - proved his university isn't interested in education and doesn't deserve to exist. (Unless of course they come back and remedy it)
Furthermore it is part of the mandate of a professor to do things like this - they are supposed to be making the world a better place, and they have a burden to that - the same way a doctor is supposed to help people even if they work for a corporation. They have BOTH responsibilities.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
It's safer for the company, too, because you can't come back with a wrongful termination suit if you weren't terminated. Being asked to resign is essentially the company paying you to leave.
Amen, mod insightful!
Yes, but good news doesn't sell. Horrible tragedies on the other hand, do. Watch the previews for any upcoming story on Fox (at least where I am), every story is apparently about how teens are driving dangerously, parents are going to get arrested if their kid drinks, driving on the Mass. Pike is even more scary because people are installing monitors in the steering wheels and watching movies while driving, etc. etc. etc. The only time somebody wants to hear about a dog saving a man from a burning building is if 20 other people died.
The funny thing is that you can go to the center of Madrid (Sol) and buy whatever copy of any CD you want. The vendors just lay their blankets out and people buy them -- right in front of the giant department store (and music vendor) El Corte Ingles.
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
*sigh*
There's a lot of comments here about how he should have gotten tenure, spoke to a union, in the U.S pressured resignation == firing, in the U.S. pressured resignation != firing, etc. How about someone from Spain actually chiming in? Is there a tenure system in Spanish universities? Teacher's union?
I live in Spain. It's generally pretty cool, but one thing I really don't like about it is that there isn't the freedom of speech here that there is in the rest of Europe.
Politicians here sometimes sue members of the public for slander or libel. The last president did it (aznar). I like the UK, where you can happily calll tony blair a liar and not worry he's going to try to sue you for it!
Physics professors routinely give lectures that are, essentially, instructions for making a nuclear weapon. Chemistry professors often teach how to create the energetic reactions that most people call explosions. Engineering professors teach the methods that can cause buildings to fall down. No one suggests that these topics must not be taught. Indeed, there is significant intellectual content in each of these topics. Nuclear power, how to avoid explosions, and how to avoid falling buildings, all require knowledge that might be misused.
The idea of a p2p network is useful for many purposes other than distribution of copyrighted material. Distribution of public-domain materials, software upgrades and patches, government documents, and contributed materials are all legitimate. The protocols and technology that are used in current p2p implementations is a legitimate topic of study, so that researchers can design improved versions for future use. Methods to discover and disable the illegal copying of copyright material, without disabling the legal publishing of contributed public-domain material, is another legitimate area for research.
Of course, it is possible that some of the people attending these lectures had the intention of using the material to violate the law. But, it is also possible that some of the students who take physics, chemistry, or engineering courses have the intention of using that material to violate other laws. If we suppress every topic that might be used to do harm, there will not be much left in our universities.
Interesting how one of the pressure tactics were the license audits. Propriatary vendors obviously have the right to do this, but it appears to have been a source of great leverage in silencing critics.
Also interesting, the teacher was only going to share his opinion on why using P2P may be legal. In America at least we are generally pretty protective of the right to debate ideas. The MPAA and its spanish counterparts though appear to be opposed to this concept.
If you're going to be an academic institution it would seem prudent to move away from software and support of groups that are unwilling to even allow different opinions to be expressed on a college compus about a topic. We used to call that type of exchange education.
When high officials in most governments (cabinet members of the US administration, for example) are fired, they always legally 'resign'
That would be a great point, if this guy had been a cabinet official rather than a part time teacher. The only similarity is that this guy was just as gutless as most of your high officials.
Get a fucking spine. When your pointy haired boss asks you to quietly resign, politely tell him/her to go fuck themselves, and ensure that they face a very public, very ugly termination process. Either way you are screwed, its not like you will get a reference from them at your next job, so quit/fired, has the same impact on you. The difference is the impact on them.
Trust me, if there were any actual grounds for dismissal, you would be escorted out. If they ask you, its because legally they can't get rid of you, or the optics are bad. Resigning is doing them a favour. Fuck them.
Make them waste resources documenting every pee break you take. Make them waste HR time. Make them get legal advice. Force them to offer you a huge buyout to go away. Best of all, when they put the pressure on to "make your life miserable", document it, and get your doctor to put on stress leave for a year or two. File a grievance with HR. Make a harasment claim. In the end, you will still be gone, but if they are being dinks, enjoy causing them pain all the way through the process.
Take the road you want to, but always remember, if they are asking, its because they CAN'T do it their way.
The article implies that he did not go against their wishes at any time. He was never asked not to do the talk, only denied the use of the venue. Only after the talk was performed was he asked to resign.
You resign from several sorts of positions, because its quite ugly the crap that will be pulled to fire you, and you still will be fired.
He would have not been allowed to actually perform his job, and his collegues may have had to suffer as well.
Its a common thing in acadamia and gov't because the alternative is much much uglier.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
The first rule about P2P, is you don't talk about P2P!
how 'bout I give you the finger....and you give me my phone call.
Yeah.. Just look at the power of slashdot. I'm referring to katie.com riot recently. This may turn into an e-bloodbath..
:-P Bah! Humbug!)
But anyway, I would like to point out that Spain just emerged from dictatorship to constitutional monarchy/democracy when General Franco died in 1975. That's about 30 years ago. Not really that long ago IMO, and it's not really a wonder when strong-arm tactics can still get away with lotsa things. It's not like they have really embraced democracy totally. I mean, they still have separatists movement like ETA and the Basque.. It's a turbulent brutality where money and influence speaks... and goes...
Case in point, Indonesia.. Suharto just resigned... But power structure of the ruling party's still there..
Possible flashpoint, Myanmar/Burma. The military gonna turn over power to civillian democracy.. Hah!
I have great respect for Germany and Japan. From Dictatorship to Democracy. Not perfect but I'm sure no one can say otherwise when compared to the others that I just pointed it out.
Regards!
deunan_k
(Stupid when my ISP's proxy got banned, and I can't login and post!
And the conference was not actually forbidden, nobody conacted him officially to tell him that he wasn't allowed to give that conference (which, by the way, was organized by the students). But, misteriously, every time he booked a room to give the conference, the reservation was cancelled shortly thereafter.
He only learned about the pressure by PROMUSICAE by unofficial channels. After the fact, the dean recognized those presures.
Also, one should remember that this teacher was not approved to give the lecture and decided to go without permission and give it in the cafeteria. This would be grounds for inspecting someones future at most companies/universities.
At companies, yes. At universities, no.
In academia, knowledge moves forward as we argue for competing viewpoints. Universities can't function properly unless it's possible to argue for unpopular viewpoints without fear of reprisal. This is one of the major differences between academia and the business world.
I'm a faculty member myself. If I choose to stand up in a cafeteria and speak my mind on any subject I please, that is my right. I'm not required or expected to obtain anybody's approval or permission. The rules are that I can't be fired for this. If you disagree with my viewpoint, then the correct response is to use your own freedom to state your dissent.
Most folks in academia, both faculty and administration, understand this, agree with it strongly as a value, and go to considerable lengths to safeguard this ability. Those safeguards grossly broke down in this case.
>blockquote> What else would *YOU* do if they told you that unless you leave, they will fire the whole department along with you? Me?? Well, the first thing I'd do is obtain a formal statement from the university and a copy of my contract of employment.
The next thing I'd do is consult with an employment lawyer. Then, if my lawyer advised to me resign, I probably would. However, if my lawyer pointed out that firing the entire department would
a) leave the University short of crucial teaching staff during the exam period
b) result in the biggest "unfair dismissal" employment tribunal in recent history...
there's a fairly good chance I wouldn't resign.
And if he resigned without having taken legal advice he's either very foolish, or knew he was in the wrong and isn't giving us the full story.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
What else would *YOU* do if they told you that unless you leave, they will fire the whole department along with you?
Call the press.
Don't know about you, but I always carry the phone number of 2 or 3 reporters on my cell phone. Just in case.
morcego
"So I scheduled a second one, and that was denied again. And a third time. Finally I gave the conference on the university cafeteria, for 5 hours, in front of 150 people." Rank Insubordination is a firing offense at most jobs.
Get in line, you sheep.
Apparently you cannot see the bigger picture:
The issue is:
What motivation did the administration have to have "wishes" of that nature? Do you really think it was the administration alone? No, the administration was affected by an external force - the M.A.F.I.A. (See other posts in this topic for what that means).
As the administrations true onus is to provide an environment for learning, and not just to learn those OfficiallyApproved(TM) topics, but anything that would advance human knowledge, then the administration was acting against it's own charter.
Quit spouting the line of the true conformist.
[If] You don't start fighting for your freedom, you're not going to have much left.
This is a good example of where "suits" step in to try and stop something they dont really understand, and getting it completely wrong. Sure the guy technically resigned, I would too if someone else would get fired if I didnt. This is censorship at its worst. Academic institutions are meant to be places where reasoned debates can take place, not where sanitized views are forced upon people. I think it was Winston Churchhill who said: "I might not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to my death your right to make an idiot of yourself"(or something similar)
I think this will spread the story much quicker than his lecture 150 attendants.
As they kept pressurising him, he realized he would soon explode if he didn't agree to resign.
I'm sure you mean he would implode. Unless you mean they were depressurising him. But that would smell bad.
morcego
I expect that it's the same in Spain.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Where freedom dies?
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
[i]"Yes, some laws are ridiculous, but don't expect your employer to pay you to rail against those laws on their property."[/] [p]A university is an institute for higher learning. It is also a business. Since this business' service is high quality education it would be in its best interest to facilitate the exchange of ideas, especially ones that are controversial, because no one else is going to do it! So in the spirit of what a typical university stands for, I believe that whoever (the director?) was paid off has failed the university's credibility and reputation.[/p]
It doesn't matter WHY they say it, they pay his salary, he either listens or goes elsewhere.
Actually, it does matter. Most western societies consider colleges and universities to be places where the exchange of ideas should be paramount. Any censorship in this regard should be cause for great concern.
Many are pointing out that this guy was not a professor, so what's the big deal? The answer is that this was in connection to a discussion about IP law. If they can't discuss the specifics of the applications of technology, then what are they there for? Shall we wait for an exalted professor to get chastised for saying the same thing before we get worked up over this?
No, this is not good news...
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
"First, the dude resigned. Sure, maybe he was "pressured" into it,"
You're new to academia, aren't you? Resigning IS the same as being fired, and as for pressured, there's no maybe about it when the music interests threaten your department with a tedious, full-scale audit for every PC in the department.
"Second, the administration had every right to fire him anyway. He made unauthorized use of their facilities by holding what amounted to a rally in their cafeteria, after he was denied use of the proper venues."
Having a lecture on the legal aspects of P2P systems falls under the rights of academic freedom, especially when the professor in charge has been teaching IP Law at the university for 5+ years. As for the word "rally," that's cute, but flat wrong. Here's a link, now why not learn what it means, as opposed to the use of the term "lecture."
"The University was simply protecting its interests,"
No, the University was caving in to commercial lobbying groups' extortion efforts. Maybe that flies at the 2-bit Finishing School you attend, but Universities, above all else, need to defend the rights of their faculty to hold lectures or seminars on intellectually boring OR controversial topics.
"and this guy was intent on raising a stink."
Keep spinning, Corporate Spokesperson. He was intent on holding a publicly-available lecture concerning P2P IP issues, and even went so far as to invite parties who have an interest in this topic (quote: "I even contacted SGAE, National Police, and the Attorney General in advance to inform them about it.").
"don't expect your employer to pay you to rail against those laws on their property."
Yes, because you'd appreciate seeing Universities become nothing more than teat-suckling, blindly-abide-the-Party-Line Institutions of Stooging, eh? It's what you're arguing for.
Chuck
Now he can work on open source full time!
Also, where does it say he was a full-time teacher?
This is the quote from his page: "Sure I was not a Professor (which I never said I was), but I taught several subjects there for over 5 years!"
In America at least we are generally pretty protective of the right to debate ideas
Did you look outside during the beginning of the Iraq war?
Does anyone have a torrent of his speech?
Is there really any question in anyone's mind whether or not the mere existence of P2P networks is legal? They clearly, clearly, are legal. There are clearly legal uses for them.
People who need proof should buy and install "World of Warcraft". Blizzard uses torrents to distribute all live patches above a certain size. That's just a single modern example.
I would think "pressurise" means "increase the pression". A body with an internal pressure greater than the outside medium tend to grow larger and eventually explode (when the containing material elastic threshold is surpassed). If they are pressurising him, I understand his internal pressure is growing.
The other case, depressurizing, would make his pressure smaller than the outside medium, eventually leading to a crush, not to an explosion.
Modern book burning has evolved into a more sophistcated system of thought policing. The schools have been reduced to prisons with faculty attempting to influcence students with their political idelogy. Rather then empowering students and faculty to make a fair fight of ideas in schools the administrations just tend to censor what ever they feel is contrary to their own personal beliefs.
The world is going to hell on an express train and it's lawyers driving the train.
THE LAW SERVES THE PEOPLE! THE PEOPLE DO NO SERVE THE LAW!
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I don't know the country you live in, but here, the wishes of the administration of the university have no relevance, as long as the lecturer stays in his scientific field. This is the freedom of teaching and research. And he obviously did not cross the line. He was a lecturer of "Intellectual Property". His talk was about how P2P relates to this concept.
I beseech you to move to a free country. Academic freedom is the last barrier to universal oppression. If professors are fired for expressing non-mainstream opinions on law, war or religion, young people will not even be aware that alternative opinions exist or that thinking for yourself is not/shouldn't be a crime. Read up on Tiananmen square and Vietnam anti-war protests and think of how different the world would be if outcomes of student protests were reversed.
But in the US at a public instution, this sort of thing is protected, even encouraged. When the instution is paid for with public funds, it is available for public uses. Employees actually have a right to speak out again their employeer and not face retribution. Why? Well it's in the public intrest. It's your tax dollars paying for it, you have a right to know if there are any problems.
Remember: There's a big difference between a public and private employeer. Yes, a private company has every right to fire you if you rail on them, or use their facilities to give a lecture they don't like, etc. That's not the case with public instutions, at least in the US.
Also academic freedom is a pretty sacred concept. Professors should be free to express their views, even ones that are unpopular with the current administration. Public universities aren't supposed to be able to force their professors to take or not take a certian stance on an issue.
Now of course this isn't the US, so the laws could be different, however that doesn't change the way I feel about it. I believe it should not only be sanctioned but encouraged for professors to give lectures on unpopular viewpoints. I believe industry should have NO say in the operations of a public instution. I believe the public has a right to have their tax dollars used towards academic freedom.
RTFA: "tried to stop it by denying permission to use the scheduled venue" (emphasis mine).
So he was only denied the use of a particular location/facility, not denied to give his lecture. No rule broken there. And not strange either. It wouldn't be the first time that a teacher takes his/her class outside, to sit in a park on a sunny day. A university cafeteria would be unusual, nothing more.
Heck, in my country being a student meant getting free public transport as well (some years ago, not these days). Some professor had the bright idea of giving his lecture inside a moving train once. And why not, if it's driving around empty otherwise. IIRC, everybody loved the idea at the time, the novelty just wore off.So is the solution:
- Everyone should share/download copyrighted works.
- No-one should ever use P2P again, even if it can have useful and 100% legitimate applications.
- The RIAA/MPAA/etc should learn that this type of behavior is highly counterproductive to their goals.
If (like me) you think the last choice is the best, what appropriate sanction can be put upon them that law-abiding netizens would agree with?Let's get something moving please. But what?
Uh, that's pretty much a one way "P2P" that the BBC is running. It's more of a client-server thing. There is no real disconnect. They're trying to stop real P2P publishing....amongst individuals. This is the real intention. The whole piracy thing is more of a distraction...like the way kiddie porn is used to villify freenet. The corps don't want to see widespread publication of anything without going through them first. Copyright is the tool used by gov't through the corps to censor.
What?
In other news, Spanish citizen pays terrorist, "100 million dollars" (in Dr. Evil voice) to keep his family from being fed to sharks with lasers mounted on their heads. Extortion perpetuates extortion. Isn't this why many countries do not negotiate with terrorist? (aren't suppose to at least) "Entire department staff dismissed for P2P lecture." May have made a better headline anyway. I'm not necessarily saying he did the wrong thing here. Just some things to consider.
I think he mentions the EU because it has the highest of standards of standards (EU countries don't go around torturing people in orange jump suits, for example).
Second, the administration had every right to fire him anyway. He made unauthorized use of their facilities by holding what amounted to a rally in their cafeteria, after he was denied use of the proper venues. The University was simply protecting its interests, and this guy was intent on raising a stink. Heck, he even "contacted SGAE, National Police, and the Attorney General in advance to inform them about it."
Fire him for what? Holding an academic talk? Its a university, thats what they do there. This guy wasn't giving a talk about how to build nuclear weapons, its a talk about P2P software.
The most suprising and shameful thing about it is the fact that they have a completely spineless Dean who caves at the slightest industry pressure. The dean shut this guy down because he was threatened with what? a -software- audit, ~ooooo~, how terrible and scary. Give me a fucking break, you don't demand someones resignation just because the BSA threatens you with a software audit. What a spineless fool.
And as far as contacting those groups, well its a academic presentation on P2P, mabye he wanted to see if they wanted to -attend-. You know, to learn about P2P!?! Obviously nobody except the professor actually knows what it is and the fact that it is used all the time for legit software exchange (linux ISOs anyone???).
I was thinking about it the same way one would think about pressurising a tire - or, more colorfully, about putting a hose in inside his mouth, closing all other body orifices and keep pumping air into him... :)
These days it seems you'll be fired from an American University for expressing a *mainstream* position. The groupthink is so firmly enforced that publically saying something that the average man on the street wouldn't even raise an eyebrow at will cause hysterics and threats of dismissal if a retraction isn't immediate.
Something's broken today, and I'm not sure how we could fix it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Neither the police nor SGAE did anything. Why? Because it was legal.
The talk was outside the cafeteria and without microphones, so people were quite packed around Jorge, sitting on the floor, in order to hear what he was saying (cafeterias tend to be noisy places).
You can see some photos of the people here .
Even the POTS is peer-to-peer at a certain level. It'd really fuck everyone in the ass if it was shut down, including the lawmaking bodies of the world as well as the *AA's and their ilk.
This is a University setting, not a bank. Academic administrations don't get to tell speakers, lecturers, or professors what to talk about or what not to talk about.
At least that's how it's supposed to work in academic institutions.
I'm very sad that you perceive that there is no difference between a university and a company. Not because you're wrong, but because you might be right.
Regards,
Ross
P2P is the INTERNET
P2P is what your browser does to get information...I'm really scared that if the idiots in Washington get brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA/DumbassesOfAmerica/etc then they will effectively make the internet illegal. Peer-to-peer is the core of the internet and the programs out there (bittorrent apps,kazaa,etc) are simply a variation on what a browser does...they are essentially big Google-like displays and web-servers all built into one.
The notion of academic freedom is central to a university
Sure, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on university grounds, and when it comes time to face consequences you get off scot-free by claiming a defense of "academic freedom".
Teach them how to write P2P systems.
I know the class below me at Edinburgh Uni had a project which involved writing thier own P2P app.
P2P Apps are a great learning experience in socket programming, distributed systems, threading and many other skills that do transfer into other areas.
However if this stuff doesn't relate to your major then i fail to see why it should be taught. Regardless of how paradigm-shifting some people think p2p is - it's just a new way to use an old technology. And unless you study CS, Law, or some relevant social science then it's not what you (or your government) are paying for you to go to uni for.
And just what about what this guy was giving the seminar on was an abuse of the notion of academic freedom? Please be as specific as possible.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I gave an impromptu lecture last week--to a group of high school students--about the recording industry. It went something like this:
." Then I went into a good 40 minute description of the business practices of that industry. The exploitation, the loophole payola, the underhanded deals. I went to show them on the board how if a major record label signed their band, how they could sell a million records and still not make any money themselves. To be fair, I also pointed out that most bands don't sell many recordings, and how the industry loses money on them.
"Mr. Highgate, is sharing music files on the Internet wrong?"
"Well, students, it's illegal. And, according to the recording industry of America, it takes money away from recording artists."
"Yes, but is it wrong?"
"Let me tell you about the business practices of the recording industry . .
"Is it wrong?" I concluded. "Well, student's, that's a moral decision you'll have to make on your own. This is a civics class. All I'm going to tell you is that it's not legal, and you'd be insanely stupid to do it using the school's computers."
Though if anyone in the administration told me not to discuss this topic, I would probably comply. Just because I don't like the RIAA doesn't mean I'd be willing to martyr myself for it.
The Internet is generally stupid
I'm not saying it's right. Only that it's reality. And yes, branches of government can incorporate. Ever heard of the FDIC or the PBGC? They're run differently from other branches of the government, but they're government offices nontheless.
The line between public and private sector has long been blurring. The worrisome thing here, to me, is that a non-government corporation was able to so easily influence a government organization.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
"The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp." -1984
Which would seemingly require an English transcript of his conference.
Anyone know if one exists?
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
You say the contract was finished.
A nice clean agreable break isn't a bad thing.
It's a status for professors at the university level that prevents them from getting fired. It's to protect the teaching of unpopular beliefs. They basically have to perform gross violations of ethics like plagarism or molesting little kids to get fired.
Tough talk. But it wasn't your quality of life on the line.
He wasn't fired for the subject of the talk. He was fired for disobeying his employer's instructions.
Academia has some of the most stifling environments around, coupled with heaps of politics and drama. A lot of very big egos, in a very small pond, and a lot of people who have tenure.
Please help metamoderate.
> because the alternative is much much uglier.
What, you mean like honesty and treating people fairly?
He proposed to give a talk on the benefits of P2P and talk about the law relating to P2P and copyright in Spain. He proposed to demo what sort of legal uses one could make of copyrighted works from P2P networks, and informed the Spanish collecting society, the national police and the attorney general to let them know what he was up to.
Does anyone know what he actually said?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Hopefully Spanish law provides for wrongful termination lawsuits.
This is ridiculous. They're moving into persecutory mode now.
He didn't make "unauthorized use" of their facilities, because no one came out and said "Hey you're not allowed to give this lecutre in any of our facilities." His request for space was denied, and that was because they couldn't blatantly say no.
It wouldn't have mattered if the guy had given the lecture outside on the lawn. They were going to come down on him for his content, not for his choice of venue.
Being a student at a liberal arts college, this entire situation is absolutely outrageous. There are lectures here on campus that are aimed specifically at issues like P2P, and even more politically charged conversations about homosexual rights.
Imagine if every professor that ever gave a lecture on unpopular subjects were fired. There would be a ton less professors, and even less intelletucal diversity.
- A CNN VP
- News Producers/Executive Producers at (at least) two of the major networks
- Various well-known journalists at the national level
- Various local well-known journalists (who I met years before I moved into this area)
If some employer tried to screw me like that, you can bet the excrement would hit the oscillating unit, if you know what I mean. If you don't have at least phone numbers of two or three reporters somewhere at your disposal... well, you're probably normal.Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
"I even contacted SGAE, National Police, and the Attorney General in advance to inform them about it."
Why did he do that? Perhaps this is the outcome he wanted?
"Violence is the last defense of the incompetent" -- Asimov wrote in one of his Foundation series books and, as we can see in this case, not only intelectual terrorism but also being mischievous are the ways of the Recording Industries. These people are playing with fire but they don't seem to realize it... All it takes the hacker community to achieve something on a grand scale is strong motivation focused on a common goal... And guess what? They are beeing pushed into that corner by the Recording Industry...
A person who an academic institution/gov't will often resign because if they force the org to fire them it will get ugly.
I'm saying the resignee will resign because otherwise things will have to get ugly to get rid of them.
Sure, we'd like if they treeted fairly, but if they're not, they will resign because the alternaive is much uglier for them personally.
--Michael
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
/i keed^2
+&x
Well, at least the US doesn't have a monopoly on censoring academics debunking corporate government powergrabs. Or maybe that would be better?
--
make install -not war
Can someone explain how a software audit works? Can software companies come to my home/biz/school and demand access to my PCs? Cant I just say no?
"When are we going to do something about it? We can't let them impose their failed, outdated, and inefficient business model through threats, pressures and silence. We must speak out. I am wiling to travel the world (as I am doing now in conferences all over Spain) to tell my story, and they will not silence me. The truth has to be known. But I need your help."
Please forward this message to ten of your friends and add your name to the list at the bottom of the message. If you are the 100th, 200th, 300th etc person please forward a copy of the message to jorge@cortell.net
Thanks.
SPAM
I agree with you that you can't really change the law. Of course, corporations can only buy laws because no one really cares about any of it. To change the law, a lot more people than just some guys on Slashdot would have to give a rat's ass one way or the other, and they JUST DON'T.
How about just don't buy their particular brand of entertainment? If you disagree with their control over their own assets, why not listen to music that falls outside the boundaries of their empire? I see dozens of great bands every year that are not on major record labels, and I live in Lincoln, Nebraska of all places. If you're near Chicago, Lawrence, Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, Austin, or anywhere like that there are some really kick ass acts around ALL THE TIME, most of whom bear no affiliation to the RIAA whatsoever.
If the RIAA/MPAA REALLY gets under your skin and the skins of about a thousand other Slashdot posters as much as you continue to claim, why do you want anything to do with their products in the first place?
Alternatives do exist, and they don't suck just because they're not millionaires and they don't have platinum records or whatever. Hundreds of bands have garnered enough national attention to be able to live off of touring and small record sales simply because they are good enough that people want to hear them. The idea that you have to sign some soul crushing contract and join a major label to make a living is only for people with big gold dollar signs in their eyes. No one REALLY needs the RIAA to get their shit out there.
Yup, p2p is illegal, sure, right.
As are cars (can be used when robbing banks) and pens (need to write that note with something). And those ski masks, yup, illegal.
Hmm, maybe we should just make CD/DVDs illegal, and, and those broadcasts. Someone might record 'em! And, if we close all the theaters, no one can sneak in and record our movies! Brilliant!
Hey, who turned off the music?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
He wasn't "forced" to resign, he chose to resign. The administration explained the pressure they were receiving, and when he heard about this, he CHOSE to resign to help the university avoid the possible consequences. They didn't threaten to fire him if he didn't resign, he chose to resign to help the university.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Which is not the case: he resigned and didn't got payed for that, simply he didn't see his collegues fired too...
Mind Booster Noori
That said, though, I personally cannot condone the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works; the creators of those works have rights, too, which includes the "right" to assign them to someone else for money. But the RIAA and MPAA have an agenda that goes beyond just defending the copyrights of their members; they are actively trying to quash even legitimate uses of this distribution channel because it poses a potentially large threat to their own monopoly over distribution. They dread the prospect of artists en masse by-passing the middlemen that they represent even more than they dread the downloaders.
And not only this:
There are some of them which even use programming languages from that period, like Modula-2 (with an 8 bit MS-DOS compiler, I swear it!).
-- 29A the number of the Beast
The fact of the matter is that a great deal of popular media is just plain bad for you. Most of the popular music I've ever heard is loaded with messages which reinforce unhealthy behavior patterns, as does nearly all the television programs on the air. The same thing goes for video games and nearly all popular film. Media produced by big corporate money is, very simply, addictive and unhealthy for both the individual and large populations. They keep people locked in highly limiting belief systems regarding employment, relationships, education and health choices, all of which lead to misery and stunted spirits.
Whether current copyright law is fair or not is entirely beside the point. It's like arguing about which side of the American political system is better. Neither is relevant within the big picture and the petty squabble merely serves to distract from the truth.
Throw out your television set. --I did this some years ago, and my life immediately became much more rich than it had ever been. Every hour is golden, and I find it amazing that I wasted so many thousands of hours in front of a television for so many years. There are countless experiences to be explored in this world; I am constantly immersed in life and I wish I had more media to throw away so as to win more time for myself.
"Judge the tree by the fruit it bears." --Or in this case, reverse it; A toxic tree can only produce toxic fruit. Stolen or 'legitimately' acquired, the fruit will still make you sick.
Look around you: The healthiest people are not consumers of shit. Everybody I know who absorbs crap media is sick in both body and soul. There is a direct link. Addicts, naturally, will want to deny this.
-FL
There is not even a hint of free speech in academia! My aunt, who is liberal, put a copy of Bush's fairly non-partisan inauguration speech on her office door and was told to take it down immediately or she would be black-balled. Being a liberal, but showing one small sign of support for a Republican president was enough to warrant retribution. This is all but published policy for most universities. I don't know of any business where you get fired or lose promotions based on political activity. Can you imagine your boss coming to talk to you and saying, "Well Bob, you've been a good employee, but you had that Kerry bumper sticker on your car, so I'm going have to let you go." There may be some exceptions here and there, but nothing like academia where it's standard operating procedure. If you don't believe me, ask Larry Summers about freedom of speech.
See above. The university administration, under coercion by the Spanish Recording Industry Association and the MPAA (I think-- I didn't quite understand that bit), didn't want the population at large to see that P2P is a valid and legal tool, as that would damage their fight against piracy.
So, does this mean MOMA get's Guernica back?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Inherent in the question of sharing music was that it was the popular, protected music the kids listened to, not public domain music. And yes, a distinction was made there too.
So no, I was not lying to students.
I should also note that I tell students that "U" is not an acceptable replacement for "you", unless you want to look like an idiot.
The Internet is generally stupid
He dissented from the opinion of someone powerful enough to force him out of business. That's the political equivalent of walking up to some gorilla of a thug and telling him that his momma dress 'im funny.
In an ideal world he would be able to do so while he doesn't break some law, but unfortunately we're living in a world where you can do pretty much everything you feel like as long as you have enough money. And the record industry certainly has.
He has abused the notion of academic freedom by picking a fight with people bigger than him, which is a certain way of getting punished, hippie ideals like freedom of speech be damned.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The game is *fixed*, and you can't win playing a fixed game.
Just stop playing. You'll win. You'll get to keep your money, you won't be funding an entertainment industry that has become a new form of quasi government, and they get to keep their slop. It's called empowerment. Having done this for more than 5 years now, I can say that it's a wonderful thing when you're the one in control.
When high officials in most governments (cabinet members of the US administration, for example) are fired, they always legally 'resign'.
Which was a huge improvement over the old system, in which you were handed a revolver and told to "do the right thing."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I agree that universities have a lot in common with corporations. They are both organizations of people, so there's no way to avoid broad similarities. But I would observe that most universities acknowledge that there are also substantial differences between the way educators and employees at traditional companies are governed.
While that acknowledgement is being made in public, however, I suspect that there is less and less respect for academic freedom in private. My father is a tenured professor at a public university and even with tenure, he gets enormous pressure to stick to making statements that are in the interests of the school and the school's sponsors.
This is a sad, sad development as the media long ago abandoned the pretense of being the conscience of government and corporations and there are very few institutions remaining that offer a venue to voice unpopular and socially heretical opinions.
Regards,
Ross
I sometimes wish I'd taken up teaching. I don't know how long I'd last in the system, though. I'd speak openly about the giant mind control game which is media, politics and religion, and urge kids to disbelieve most of what the curriculum tries to serve them while encouraging free thought and exploration. I'd teach about corporate practices, how the government secret services work, the roots and practices of Zionism, the mind-fuck which is Christianity and monotheism in general, the mind-fuck which is modern science, as well as a whole bunch of other subjects certain to make parents cry out for my public hanging.
Education is not really about education, but robot manufacture. Any teacher brave enough to throw a spanner in the works is worthy of quiet praise.
-FL
He was forced to resign. Hard to see how that saves him financially in any way.
There are laws against that, you know.
The guy made a speech, therefore they're gonna make sure he never works again? Don't think so.
That'd bad news fro the university, not for him. You actually get nice settlements from people trying to blackball others and destroy their careers.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Not really. It's probably the Spanish version of the ECDL - like a driving license, it's a certificate showing that the bearer has passed exams regarding basic computer knowledge and skills.
:-) )
( We seem to be getting somewhere, in Norway at least "Datakortet" - the "Computer Card" - can be obtained using Linux
for sale: one(1) university dean.
Polytechnic University of Valencia Dean. Slightly used by record industry. Obedient, simple minded, easy to train/use. Free to recording industry or idiotic regulatory agency.
MPAA and the like can't be hurting THAT much from P2P networks and other kinds of file sharing if they have enough money to throw around and influence university administrators.
"That is the saving grace of humor, if you fail no one is laughing at you." -A. Whitney Brown
In my area, when you get fired you lose many benefits on the way out the door.
If you resign, you do retain some, and you dont have that big black mark on your record.
It may not be much in some cases, but there is a difference.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Your an expert at Spanish Law?
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
i mean, it was a lecture on p2p networks and their uses for information distribution ;P
sum.zero
Yet another reason why the US is the greatest nation on gods green earth. (to borrow from Michael Medved). Many try to counter that freedom of speech only applies to speaking about the government. The problem with this is that under a capitalist society corporations and institutions can wield far more power over a person than government. In many places "Big Brother" came true, it just turned out to be corporations, not government.
Much as I am in favor of Jorge's position and admire him, I must say, just for debating purposes, that this is a public university.
That means it is goverment/state funded. Does anyone think it is correct for someone on the state's payroll to be lecturing to students in a biased illegal-tending way?
I can clearly see the similarity to a corportate employer/employee situation.
This discussion should not at all be about freedom of speech. Jorge is an employee, and his bosses make the laws. He is inciting against following them, and is pressured not to do that.
Again, I want to stress that I support him completely, but in a way can't avoid understanding that educational context doesn't allow for these sort of lectures.
hawk
I think it's similarly misleading to say that "certain uses of p2p [are] illegal," as it tends to understate the truth of the matter. It's a lie of omission if you fail to acknowledge that those "certain uses" happen to be the most popular ones, by far.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by criminalizing P2P you make decent people afraid of using P2P applications, and effectively shut it down as a distribution channel for legal purposes. When this is done it becomes easier to convince legislators that P2P should be illegal anyway, because it is exclusively used for illegal purposes.
My last use (and one of the few uses) of Bittorrent was to download a FreeBSD CD image. I never download copyrighted music or movies, but I suspect the very fact that I used the technology is enough reason to put me on a list of people to watch somewhere.
Why does the entertainment industry go directly after the technology instead of its use?
Because it is easy to enforce, of course, and because they are the ones who will get to define what a P2P technology is. Don't be surprised if Internet becomes a kind of passive television where they own the servers and you are only allowed to be a client. That's the situation their 'business model' is based on, and they want to go back to it.
Another piece of the strategy is to make expensive legal requirements on ISP's and content providers so that only big companies can afford to own servers and you, as an individual citizen, are on the receiving, consuming, end only.
P2P is an interesting technology that never achieved its potential because it is being criminalized before reaching maturity. Think of it: torrent links are immune to the Slashdot effect. P2P should be integrated into every browser, and it should be supported as a matter of principle.
My an expert at spanish law? No, it might be yours though.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
In a SLAPP suit, a large, wealthy entity files a frivolous lawsuit against a smaller entity, solely for the purpose of discouraging some course of action. The choice then is to spend exorbitant amounts of money (which the smaller entity typically does not possess) defending against the suit, or give up the course of action the larger entity dislikes. It is, in effect, a form of protection racket whereby a large company says "play by our rules and we'll leave you alone", and in many places it is illegal.
What happened here was apparently the equivalent, just with slightly different methods -- if the professor doesn't resign, the full pressure of a large, wealthy organization will be brought to bear against the university (e.g., repeated audits and inspections of software licenses, copyright use, etc. and of course steep fines if/when any infringement is found), which can't afford to be targeted in such a way. Thus the university, for its own protection, is forced to apply pressure to the professor who, in turn, decides that it is better to resign and publicize the story than bring down his university while fighting the media cartel.
nt.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
for £10! [/irony] ;)
Someone really should have used a dictaphone a sent a copy to a slashdotter
A blog I run for the wealth
"Is it wrong?" I concluded. "Well, student's, that's a moral decision you'll have to make on your own..."
Unless you have the artist's permission, I think it's clear that it's wrong. The fact that the music industry is engaged in a greater wrong is not even that much of a mitigating factor. It's up to the artist to choose to involve themselves in civil disobedience against the label system, to accept the consequences of sharing their songs on P2P, whether good or bad. It's not up to you to make that decision for them.
It's like software piracy. There is no doubt that some companies have benefited tremendously from secondary effects of having their software widely pirated. Microsoft is a perfect example... piracy of Office has been a big part of what destroyed the market for office suites that might compete against Office on the basis of price. It's hard to even give them away now, and there's no doubt that without that piracy Office would have a lower market share. But that doesn't justify trading copies of Office, it would be Microsoft's responsibility to allow additional people to use your copy of Office. If anything, it makes pirating Office even more reprehensible, given what the long term results have been.
Similarly, trading music that artists have chosen not to share has reduced the value of independant artists, to the point that it's hard for them to get attention even by giving their music (some of which is tremendously good) away. If you don't like the label system, it's far more moral and effective to promote sites like 3hive that hilight independant artists, many of whom are more than happy to let you download complete songs (not just 30 second samples) if there's a chance that'll convince you to buy their CDs. And, heck, it even works.
It'd work better if epople would quit thinking they need the latest music by some label artist, and take a flyer on someone they've never heard of, and pass the samples around if they like them. They don't even need P2P to do it, they can just email a URL... and it's completely legal AND moral and does a MUCH better job of disempowering the RIAA and the label system.
This is not an example of suppression of distasteful speech; it's an example of its exercise.
So, to go back to the message you're replying to, where was the robust debate that resulted from this exercise of speech? Why, it was nowhere, because it was suppressed by all the mechanisms-short-of-prosecution they could come up with.
One doesn't have to ban speech if one can suppress enough of it that your voice can drown out the opposition.
The Spoilsmanship of the Jackson administration is no longer considered acceptable. It's long past time that abuse of the "Bully Pulpit" of the Presidency went the same way.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
He shoulda used a proxy...
Socrates should be rolling over in his grave by now. The guy was just trying to give a lecture. If he can't give the lecture in the cafeteria, he might as well have just given it from a parking lot somewhere. Then that would be one step closer to the socratic method... well, maybe if he gave the lecture in the market and instead of lecturing asking people questions about P2P networks...
Get a UK lawyer to explain what the law is.
What do you call someone who gets legal advice from Slashdot?
"Inmate".
Article 20
1. The following rights are recognized and protected:
a) the right to freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions by word, in writing or by any other means of communication;
b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation;
c) the right to academic freedom;
d) the right to freely communicate or receive accurate information by any means of dissemination whatsoever. The law shall regulate the right to invoke personal conscience and professional secrecy in the exercise of these freedoms.
2. The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any form of prior censorship.
3. The law shall regulate the organization and Parliamentary control of the social communications media under the control of the State or any public agency and shall guarantee access to such media to the main social and political groups, respecting the pluralism of society and of the various languages of Spain.
4. These freedoms are limited by respect for the rights recognized in this Title, by the legal provisions implementing it, and especially by the right to honour, to privacy, to personal reputation and to the protection of youth and childhood.
5. The confiscation of publications and recordings and other information media may only be carried out by means of a court order.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Wow, gotta love them finicky mods. How many other comments have been to both +5 *and* -1 in the space of 8 hours? America, vhaat a caantry!
Back on topic, the dean was probably just trying to avoid a hassle by denying the prof use of their lecture halls. Most likely, he, personally, didn't feel like dealing with the publicity. The dumbass professor went behind the dean's back and held the lecture anyway, bringing exactly the publicity the dean was trying to avoid. This was a real two-fer: pissing off the dean *and* insubordination. The prof effectively got himself fired, and I'm sure he wasn't surprised in the least.
The prof was making himself into a martyr, which is the last thing any cause needs. It's also the last thing the world needs.
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Not to worry. They'll write the law in such a way that only the uses the DA deigns to notice will be affected.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
a dictatorship? Some topics are forbidden in universities?
I'm sorry, but I have to correct you: if the unit is merely oscilating, your unit is going up and down in a linear direction. I think the applicance you are cogitating on is of the rotary designation: that way you shall have a much more even application of shit to the surrounding environment (as opposed to just up and down).
/is/ /., after all :)
Sorry, this
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Neither the police nor SGAE did anything. Why? Because it was legal.
Guess what, the SGAE didn't do anything illegal either, they just picked up the phone and asked his boss to get him to resign. So, both he and the SGAE each did something private and legal. What are you getting so upset about, then (rhetorical question)?
I'm sympathetic to his cause, but he went about this in an ineffective and stupid way. If he wanted to be a martyr to the cause, at least he should have done it in a way that resulted in them doing something actionable (like a wrongful termination).
Oh dear, we can't change the law, we just can't... the bad guys own the system.
It appears that you intended this remark with sarcasm, but in fact it is the case that the major movie studios control the U.S. government. Many American voters appear to act with apathy; they'll vote for whomever they see most on TV. The TV news networks choose which candidate gets the most airtime. All major commercial TV news networks are owned by a parent company that also owns a major motion picture studio (ABC News -> Walt Disney; NBC News -> Universal; CNN and Headline News -> Warner Bros.; Fox News -> Twentieth Century Fox; CBS News -> Paramount) and are likely to serve that studio's political interests in which candidates they select for TV. Therefore, both viable candidates in a given congressional election will support expansion of the privileges of movie studios.
How can we fight voter apathy?
There are ways to "not play the game" besides breaking the law. Just don't buy the music or give them any of your $$.
This is ineffective. The record labels are affiliated with the music publishers who own copyright in the songs I hear on the radio or over the speaker system in a grocery store. Once I hear a song through such a public performance, I am forever barred from using that combination of notes in any of my own compositions, even if the copying is done subconsciously. So what should I do to write songs without subconsciously copying any of the songs that I have heard in my decades of having been alive?
If I create a wonderful painting, do you have a right to view it if I don't want you to?
You have a natural right to keep it private, to exhibit it only in places where photography has been banned on the private property. You have an artificial right but not a natural right to "have your cake and eat it too" by distributing the work in copies to the public while retaining legal control over reproduction.
The problem here is that there are no natural rights to view or consume intellectual property.
Please do not use the confusing term "intellectual property" when discussing sensitive moral issues. Copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and rights of publicity are more different than they are alike, and they have different moral tradeoffs. For instance, the holder of a patent on a mathematical algorithm has an artificial right but not a natural right to prohibit other people from independently reinventing and reimplementing the invention, while the owner of copyright in a computer program does not.
Think of it: torrent links are immune to the Slashdot effect.
Trackers can still get overloaded, and the "trackerless" BT clients (BramTorrent and Azureus) aren't compatible with each other.
That depends on whether they pressurize all of him, or only part of him.
afterwards, even if found innocent, you still have to deal with "so why were you audited? what did you do wrong?" questions.
Answer: "It was a measure to maintain our accountability to the public." It's easier to get the press to bite this excuse if audits of various aspects of various departments are conducted annually.
For this reason I belive there should be some form of consumer union.
There already is. It publishes a monthly magazine titled Consumer Reports, and it has spoken out against at least the FCC's (temporarily defunct) broadcast flag.
You can exchange information with out P2P. We are doing it right now.
The Internet itself is a peer-to-peer network.
There is no comparison between people being able to share data in a specific way and people being denied basic human rights.
Other than that strict client-server communication permits only those who can afford big servers to have any semblance of a voice?
Just stop playing. You'll win. You'll get to keep your money, you won't be funding an entertainment industry that has become a new form of quasi government
So what happens when the entertainment industry manages to talk Congress into taking the right to purchase a general purpose computer away from the public? And what happens when you write a song, publish it on the Internet, and then get sued for "subconscious copying" of a copyrighted song?
Then the best choice is to boycott the companies
If you boycott the RIAA and the NMPA/Harry Fox Agency, and you start writing your own songs instead and publishing them on the net, then you open yourself up to lawsuits alleging subconscious copying of some copyrighted work that you heard on the radio at age 11.
and vote against the politician that enacted thoes laws.
What is my political power compared to that of the Apathetic Voter Bloc which will vote for whichever candidate appears the most on movie-studio-owned TV news networks?
Remeber, as citizens we vote every 2-4 years
Twelve-year-olds can't vote, but they can still be sued for millions of dollars in statutory damages for copyright infringement.
I hope that he does.
Wikileaks, no DNS
If I were the Spanish Authorities, I would cut all funding to this university. Clearly they have no spine, and they'll cave to whatever stupid interest comes knocking. It is not in the interests of a nation to have it's students bought like this.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Short form for "under Intelectual Property right", "Copyrighted","Patented"
Specifically, I was wondering whether this immunity from liability for private copying under Spanish law extended only to copyrights, as in most nations' private copying statutes that I've reviewed, or whether it extended to patents as well.
Dumbass, not dumass, dumbass...
Mind Booster Noori
I'm not joking.
Remember how Macromedia patented anti-P2P technology? That was functionally the same as patenting anti-Terrorism in Iraq.
Social P2P networks are everywhere. They are behind the rise of the Religious Right in America. They are behind the rise of 9/11-Style terrorism. Knowing how to work in P2P network is the key to winning the War in Iraq.
When the recording industry makes a university fires teachers for talking about P2P, they are dismissing soldiers in the Global War on Terrorism.
Fight terrorism. Protect tenure.
This comment is not a joke. It is very serious.
The disconnect exists in the fact that under Spanish law, downloading copyrighted material for personal use and without making any money doing so is totally legal. I can download Star Wars to my PC, and as far as I do not sell it, I am doing it legally (in Spain at least). So the thing is that different countries have different laws (this same kind of laws is common in most european countries, the US is one of the most restrictive in the use of copyrighted material). But the RIA and the rest of the gang use their lawyers to threaten people that, afraid of getting into legal battles, avoid the whole discussion. I am not buying more CDs myself ........